• Resuscitation · Aug 2020

    Review

    A systematic review on the effectiveness of anti-choking suction devices and identification of research gaps.

    • C L Dunne, A E Peden, A C Queiroga, C Gomez Gonzalez, B Valesco, and D Szpilman.
    • Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Medical Committee, International Life Saving Federation, Belgium. Electronic address: cody.dunne@ucalgary.ca.
    • Resuscitation. 2020 Aug 1; 153: 219-226.

    AimDespite an obstructed airway (choking) being a relatively preventable injury, it has a considerable mortality burden globally, with increasing incidence. Given new technologies in choking management, this systematic review aimed to assess current literature on the effectiveness of anti-choking suction devices at relieving obstructions.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus and the English websites of the devices were searched on September 23, 2019. Studies were included if they reported the anti-choking devices' dislodgment success rate (primary outcome) or associated adverse events (secondary outcome). Articles, conference abstracts or technical reports were included if peer reviewed. Certainty of evidence was assessed in accordance with GRADE.ResultsFive studies satisfied the inclusion criteria for this review. Two studies (40%) reported findings of a single centre mannequin trial, one (20%) of a single centre cadaveric trial, and two (40%) were case series. Cohen's Kappa for the first and second round of screening was 0.904 and 0.674 respectively. Although several devices have been manufactured worldwide, the LifeVac© has been most extensively studied, with a combined dislodgement success rate of 94.3% on first attempt. However, certainty of evidence for the primary outcome was evaluated as very low.ConclusionsThere are many weaknesses in the available data and few unbiased trials that test the effectiveness of anti-choking suction devices resulting in insufficient evidence to support or discourage their use. Practitioners should continue to adhere to guidelines authored by local resuscitation authorities which align with ILCOR recommendations.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.